Newsline 23 October 2015

Newsline 23 October 2015

Not a member? The most tangible way of supporting our work is by becoming a member and contributing funds to enable us to campaign effectively; the more we have, the more we can do. If you believe, as we do, that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us and become part of what is possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

News, Blogs & Opinion

Government unveils counter-extremism plans

News | Mon, 19th Oct 2015

The Government has released its long-awaited counter-extremism plan, and set out a host of measures aimed at tackling the spread of radical Islamist ideologies.

Under the plans announced by the Government, convicted terrorists will be automatically barred from working with children and other "vulnerable people", and parents will be able to apply to have their children's passports removed if they fear they may be at risk of travelling to join jihadist groups abroad.

In a move welcomed by the National Secular Society, the Government will "commission an independent review to understand the extent to which Shari'a is being misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law."

The strategy says "We will never countenance allowing an alternative, informal system of law, informed by religious principles, to operate in competition with [UK law]."

However, the NSS has urged the Government to be cautious about plans to hand-out £5 million to "moderate Muslim groups" and to a newspaper run by "moderate imams", warning that similar schemes in the past had seen funds get into the wrong hands.

The NSS challenged the Government to account for how "moderate" groups and religious leaders will be selected.

Stephen Evans, campaigns manager of the National Secular Society, said that there are "many groups, such as Inspire and British Muslims for Secular Democracy, doing important work promoting human rights and shared citizenship to counter-extremism and Islamist narratives" but warned that there is a "danger that this funding will instead end up promoting organisations with ulterior motives – as other similar schemes have in the past.

"In 2011 Theresa May strongly criticised the Labour Government's Prevent programme and promised to end state funding for groups with extremist sympathies, after it emerged that hundreds of thousands of pounds found its way into the hands of Islamist organisations. This proposal is potentially open to similar exploitation by groups masquerading as 'moderates'. There must be careful scrutiny of which groups are funded, to make sure that support is given to the organisations which are genuinely making a difference."

The Strategy makes no explicit reference to proposed controversial Extremism Disruption Orders (EDO's), which have been the subject of a joint campaign called Defend Free Speech by the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.

The Government now says that extremist organisations will be banned, but "strong safeguards" will exist "to ensure these powers are only used in the most serious cases". In addition, the strategy document says that the powers will not be able to be used against "privately held views or people expressing their religious beliefs" or to "curtail the democratic right to protest", "close down debate" or limit free expression, concerns the Christian Institute and National Secular Society shared about the earlier EDO proposals.

Mr Evans commented: "We're hope that this is a sign that our warnings about the potential threat EDOs pose to everyone's free expression are being heeded by the Government. We would certain oppose any new measures that run the risk of curtaining free speech".

Other measures, to come in a new anti-extremism bill, will "restrict access to premises which are repeatedly used to support extremism" and "strengthen the powers available to Ofcom" to sanction channels that broadcast extremist content or give a platform to hate preachers.

The Muslim Council of Britain immediately criticised the strategy and denied that any mosques held extremist meetings. It also said that the strategy was "flawed" and complained that it focused on "Muslims in particular".

The Government says the strategy will "seek to build more cohesive communities, tackling the segregation and feelings of alienation that can help provide fertile ground for extremist messages to take root", but the NSS questioned how this is compatible with the Government's ongoing support for publicly funded religious schools.

Mr Evans commented: "Faith schools are inimical to building cohesive communities. If faith schools are not directly making things worse, they are at best a badly wasted opportunity to promote integration and break down barriers between people from different faith backgrounds from a young age."

"The Government's failure to consider this just goes to show how well-entrenched religious privilege is."

Read the Government's new Counter-Extremism Strategy in full

Ex-Bishop of Durham calls for Christian “theocracy”

News | Wed, 21st Oct 2015

Dr Tom Wright, the former Anglican bishop of Durham, has called for "cruciform theocracy" at an event held at St Paul's Cathedral.

Wright said that there should be no separation between religion and politics, and that Jesus "came to institute God's rule on earth, theocracy."

He said that "To hear the call of Jesus right now [is] to be part of [a] kingdom project."

"The whole meaning of God's kingdom is about the one true God calling time on the world's wicked empires and setting up a radically different empire instead."

The former bishop rejected the view of some secularist Christians that the New Testament acknowledges a separation between church and state and went on, "When Jesus talks of [the] Kingdom of God, he really did mean that this was the time for God to become King and reign in a way that not only challenges Caesar's kingdom but challenges Caesar's type of kingdom."

"When you put it in context, it is anything but a mandate for church/state split," he argued.

In an apparent reference to the refugee and migration crisis, he said: "The problem is that the West has bought so deeply into the narrative of the Enlightenment and then can't understand what has gone wrong when the tragedies of this world literally wash up on our shores."

National Secular Society campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, said: "I'm sure most Christians in the UK would join us in dismissing these bizarre comments. Theocracy and the imposition of religious belief through coercion is the direct cause of many conflicts in the world today; to say nothing of the immense human rights abuses that theocracies perpetuate.

"The former bishop's comments might be laughable in a British context – because nobody will take them seriously – but in other parts of the world defending theocracy means defending blasphemy laws, the death and imprisonment of apostates, and a whole catalogue of abuses.

"Secularists are serious about defending religious freedom and freedom from religion; Bishop Wright's worldview threatens both."

Bishop Wright has made many controversial comments in the past. In 2008 he said that "secular utopianism" is based on a belief that "we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between."

Dr Tom Wright is currently serving as Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Studies at The University of St Andrews.

Source: Christian Today

Some good news for free speech on campuses

Opinion | Wed, 21st Oct 2015

With too many instances of campus censorship to list, it's easy to be pessimistic about freedom of expression on campus, but there are a few promising signs of progress, led by students, writes Benjamin Jones.

I've spoken on two university campuses in the past two weeks, Bath University, and before that at my own alma mater Exeter, and on both occasions there have been causes for optimism about freedom of speech.

The topic at Bath was on blasphemy, free speech and censorship on campuses, a subject sadly too vast to adequately address in 45 minutes, and at Exeter I spoke alongside Bob Churchill of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) opposing the motion "this house would not satirise religious figures".

We won the debate with a convincing majority, despite the wording of the motion allowing audience members to reason "one should be free to satirise, but I don't wish to." Had the motion been "this house would ban criticism of religious figures" I hope we might have won even more convincingly, but the Debating Society which hosted it may have had trouble finding speakers willing to put their name to such a coercive motion.

Nevertheless, the sight of so many students raising their hands at the end of the debate to vote for and support the free speech argument was very welcome.

We were speaking against two academics, one of whom had published a book about the Satanic Verses 'controversy' (which should really be called the 'fatwa controversy') ominously titled "Be Careful With Muhammad".

Coincidentally, that slogan appeared on the banners of the Muslim Action Forum marching in London earlier this year, and (not having read his book) I argued that the slogan on the banner seemed to me the first clause of a threat, completed by the words "or else".

The audience seemed most persuaded by the propositions' arguments when they were framed around protecting the dignity of Muslim individuals, by refraining from criticising or satirising Islam. In this way identity politics reared its head, and we had to deal with well-meaning objections from some in the audience who unwittingly propounded arguments for censorship in the language of "respect" and "tolerance"; virtues in themselves to be sure, but meaningless in an unfree society.

The proposition used the example of a poor Muslim taxi driver in Bradford (I paraphrase) whose "main dignity was derived from Islamic identity." They argued that to "take this away from him" by satirising Mohammed was unjust.

In response to these types of points I argued that all sorts of identity markers and ethical beliefs are intrinsic to my identity, but that criticism of these things did not deprive me of anything, and that it was – and is – a patronising argument to assume that, because somebody is poor, and Muslim, that their ideas cannot be open to challenge in the normal way; not least when the challenge is not lodged at them personally, but impersonally in newspapers, debates, discussions and in wider society. An atheist might well refrain from telling an individual religious believer that their faith was a false consolation (a self-censorship not practised by the many Christian preachers the NSS speaks out to defend when they get into trouble with the law for what they have said) but that should hardly mean that they ought never to express those views under any circumstances.

At Bath the NSS was invited to speak by the Atheists, Humanists and Secularists Society, and I was mildly surprised when I asked the small audience if anybody present supported a no-platform policy. There seemed to be no support for this whatsoever, and an apparent consensus that often the most effective way to challenge extremism was to defend the right of ignorant and mendacious fanatics of all kinds to embarrass themselves and their causes in front of large, confident, educated audiences.

The Bath AHS and the University of Exeter Debating Society are self-selecting groups, with an obvious predisposition to defending free speech by their very nature. But they and groups like them are the nucleus of a small, though important, student push-back against campus censorship.

Who is more representative of ordinary students, the members of these two groups, or the busybodies in obscure positions of the NUS hierarchy who want to 'no-platform' a prodigious and manifestly absurd variety of speakers, while resisting the Prevent strategy, without a modicum of self-awareness, because they say it restricts free speech? I think (and hope) that the answer leans towards the former, and that they might begin to make their voices heard more loudly.

Outside the university 'bubble', wider society is ever more aware and scornful of Student Union censors; while within higher education some students are starting to speak out with more confidence.

Undoubtedly there will be other examples of de facto bans on blasphemy this academic year, and very many bad speaker policies remain, but universities and students are not wholly lost.

With pressure from outside, and (I hope) growing opposition from their members, Student Unions themselves will learn too that free expression must be safeguarded – while institutions see the reputational costs of censorship and consider how to fulfil their legal and moral duty to defend freedom of speech.

Whether or not the students at these two events were a fair sample of their peers, it was reassuring to see so many students emphatically standing up for freedom of expression: There is some cause for hope.

Freedom of expression cannot be left to the “mercy of others”, says chair of EHRC

News | Wed, 21st Oct 2015

Baroness O'Neill, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has warned that there is no way of securing freedom of expression and a right not to be offended.

Speaking at Inner Temple for an event held by Theos, attended by the National Secular Society, Baroness O'Neill spoke on freedom of expression and religious freedom, telling the audience that society was in a "terrible muddle about the shape that rights" to free expression and religious freedom should take.

The Baroness said that while freedom of speech and religion has taken "high importance in the contemporary world", the rights were clearly not "universally respected" – as evidenced by the "persistence of intolerance and intimidation, of outright censorship and religious persecution of those of other faiths, and in the criminalisation of apostasy in some states."

Addressing the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and the Danish cartoons published a decade ago, Baroness O'Neill said that "offence is a subjective matter" and that there is "no way of securing freedom of expression if we also maintain that there is a right not to be offended."

Certain types of speech, such as intimidation or inciting hatred, she said, "can be regulated without putting freedom of expression at the mercy of others." However a "right not to be offended … would put everyone's freedom of expression at the mercy of others."

She said that "attempts to regulate speech content have repeatedly foundered because parody and euphemism, satire and pseudonyms, allow people to convey ostensibly prohibited content, while keeping within the law" and that "the Censor's life is not a happy one."

"Our legislation, I think correctly, does not restrict freedom of expression merely because some speech act offends some others, or even offends some of them gravely."

In 2013 the National Secular Society and Christian Institute, along with others, successfully campaigned to change the law to remove "insults" from Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

Because offensiveness is subjective, she told the audience, any "supposed right not to be offended" would "put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving—or worse."

Turning towards religious freedom and freedom of belief, Baroness O'Neill said the law was unclear about what exactly constituted a "belief", pointing out that "opposition to fox hunting [is] classified as a 'religion or belief', but support for fox hunting [is] not classified as a 'religion or belief."

Only further legislation or complementary court decisions could establish what types of belief are protected by current law, she said.

When asked about her views on whether it was necessary to protect religion or belief further with a new workplace duty of reasonable accommodation, analogous to the duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, Baroness O'Neill said she had "no firm view" but said the problem with such a duty is that it may "fall on other employees".

When asked how she would respond to Christians who feel "persecuted" in the UK, the Baroness said could see how "a misreading of employment tribunal case could lead people to feel unnecessarily anxious".

The full text of Baroness O'Neill's speech can be read here

Combatting anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hatred is of “existential importance” to Europe

News | Sat, 17th Oct 2015

First Vice-President Frans Timmermans of the European Commission has said that tackling anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic violence is critical to Europe's future.

In a statement released to record the work of the first Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights, which NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood attended along with local, national and EU policy makers and experts in a range of fields, First Vice-President Timmermans said that combatting religious hatred was of "existential importance to the future of Europe".

The Colloquium was held to examine underlying reasons behind "the surge in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents in Europe" and to promote a "culture of inclusive tolerance and respect in the European Union."

At the meeting the National Secular Society stressed the importance of an integrated education system without religious barriers. The NSS argued that separating children by their parents' faith was a wasted opportunity to help tackle religious hatred and sectarianism.

The NSS also discussed the need for schools to actively promote citizenship and appreciation for human rights. The statement released by the European Commission after the meeting acknowledged the "crucial role of education in preventing discrimination" and recognised that participants had "highlighted that schools offer a unique opportunity to transmit the values of tolerance and respect, since they reach out to all children from an early age."

The Commission called on Member States to foster inclusive education and mutual understanding amongst children and young people through initiatives promoting European values, citizenship education and religious literacy.

"Given this, the prospect of even more faith schools in the UK is a deeply regressive policy," commented NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans. "We need to break down barriers between communities, not have children begin their lives in schools segregated by religious identity."

The Commission said that the meeting considered how "the inflow of a large number of persons from diverse backgrounds, cultures and religions, many of whom are Muslims, added a new element of urgency to efforts to ensure tolerance and respect in European societies."

In order to address rising religiously-motivated violence, First Vice-President Timmermans announced that the European Commission would nominate two coordinators, "one for antisemitism and one for Islamophobia, to help ensure coordination of European efforts on antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred".

It also called on "local, national, European and international authorities, together with civil society, to support community leaders in the breaking of stereotypes and the developing of counter-narratives reaching out beyond their own communities".

While the National Secular Society has criticised the use of the term 'Islamophobia' in official language, it welcomes efforts to tackle both anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic violence.

The NSS has previously called for better monitoring and higher quality data to record information about hate crimes, and the European Commission acknowledged that "the better recording of incidents and the underreporting by victims were also seen as central."

NSS Speaks Out

Communications officer Benjamin Jones appeared on BBC Sunday Morning Live to discuss moral standards and the declining role of religion in the UK. The NSS campaign to protect secular school provision on the Isle of Wight was also mentioned by BBC News, after it was announced that Weston Primary School to close – leaving pupils forced to attend faith schools.

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans' blog on 'reasonable accommodation' for religion and belief was published in the Huffington Post, and some of our concerns about the Government's counter-extremism strategy were mentioned by the Christian Institute, in an article on Extremism Disruption Orders, and by UK Fundraising.co.uk, who noted our concerns about the £5 million of funding announced for "moderate" charity groups and organisations working to counter religious extremism.